Crazy, Stupid, Love
In a summer full of wizards, robots, aliens, and superheroes, Hollywood knows that some people **cough**women**cough** want something a little softer, a little funnier, a little more romantic. Well, “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is that movie... more or less. To be more exact it is another of the recent string of RomComs that are focusing more on the comedy than the romance, and this is very much to the film's benefit.
Lets see if I can briefly explain the relationships between the major players here. Cal (Steve Carell: “The Office”) and Emily (Julianne Moore: ”Blindness”) are a longtime married couple. Cal thinks things are fine until Emily reaveals that she has been having an affair with David (Kevin Bacon: “Stir of Echoes”), and wants a divorce. Cal is stunned, but it's not as if he's unloved as, unbeknownst to him, the babysitter, Jessica (Analeigh Tipton) is in love with him. Unfortunately she's seventeen, and Cal and Emily's son., Robbie (Jonah Bobo: “Zathura”) is in love with her.
While wallowing in his sorrows, Cal meets Jacob (Ryan Gosling: “Blue Valentine”), a true player who takes pity on Cal, and decides to help him become more of a ladies man (or at least more of a man). Jacob is the very picture of confidence and swagger, seemingly able to get any woman he sets his sights on; any woman that is except Hannah (Emma Stone: ”Zombieland”, ”Easy A”), a young law student whose plans revolve around marrying her boyfriend, Richard (singer, Josh Groban).
Does all of that make sense? I hope so, because it actually gets a little more confusing as the film progresses.
“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is a RomCom seemingly made with the knowledge that women are going to drag their men to these things anyway, so lets make them appeal to both genders. In fact so much time is spent in the film focusing on the interaction between Carell's awkward, middle-aged office drone and Gosling's slick, shallow player that this may all actually appeal a little bit more to men than women. Only a little though.
With a great cast and mostly good pacing, there's really only one big criticism I have about this film: The length. It's not so much that the film is about two hours long that is the problem, but that it climaxes (as far as the laughes go at least) a good thirty minutes before it ends. The last quarter of the film focuses on the more traditional feelings and relationships that one would expect from your average RomCom, and while this may appeal greatly to the core audience films like this target, for me this really took a lot of wind out of the picture's sails. This long eplilogue, with its confessions of love, and the moral of the story, drops what was a really good comedy up to that point down to just a, above average romantic comedy.
Not a great film, but as romantic comedies go this one is a little refreshing in that it will be easy for men to watch, and it does not go out of its way to portray Steve Carell's character as the bad guy in the situation, which is nice. It may not have superheroes or wizards, but what “Crazy, Stupid, Love” does have is a strong cast, a solid, emotional story for the stereotypical RomCom fan, and enough big laughs to keep everyone else from rolling their eyes too much.
“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is in theaters now.
Showing posts with label RomCom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RomCom. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Friends With Benefits
When I first saw the trailer for the new film “Friends with Benefits” I could help but think, “Haven't I see this movie already? It came out back in January and was called 'No Strings Attached' , and it was a confused mess.” That's right, two movies in the same year with the same sex-without-emotional-attachment concept both starring members of the cast of “That 70's Show”. “But hey,” I thought, “At least it will be fun to write a bad review of it.” Of course what I didn't know is that it was directed by Will Gluck (“Easy A”); had I known that I might have gone in with higher expectations.
Mila Kunis (“The Book of Eli”) plays Jamie, a corporate recruiter who is trying to lure Dylan (Justin Timberlake: “The Social Network”) to New York to interview for a position with GQ magazine. She manages to win him over, and he trades his Los Angeles life for a new home in New York.
Of course the only person that Dylan knows in New York, aside from his new employees, is Jamie, and seeing as neither of them have much luck with dating due to their various personality issues they begin to hang out regularly. After a night of drinking and watching a hilariously bad romantic comedy (starring Jason Segel and Rashida Jones from ”I Love You, Man”) the discussion turns to sex as an activity instead of as an expression of emotion. The discussion quickly turns to an action, and the pair's emotion-free relationship begins.
“Friends With Benefits” wants to be to romantic comedies what the original “Scream” was to horror films; it completely takes the piss out of the genre while still being faithful to it. “No Strings Attached” sort of tried to do this by including ever RomCom trope ever into one film, and it ended up being a complete mess of a film, but this movie finds its focus and sticks with it. There are no zany best friends in this film, no beta couple, no jerkass trying to steal the heart of one of the main couple; it's just two people trying to be best friends who just happen to have sex with each other... a lot.
Of course the lack of wacky best friends and beta couples doesn't mean there is no supporting cast; there's a very strong one in fact. Through the course of the film we get to meet Jamie's mother (Patricia Clarkson: “Easy A”, Dylan's father (Richard Jenkins : “Six Feet Under”, “Hall Pass”), sister (Jenna Elfman: “Dharma and Greg), and nephew (Nolan Gould: “Modern Family”). Of course it would'nt be right to not mention who might be the funniest actor in the entire film: Woody Harrelson (”Zombieland”) as Tommy, GQ's manic sports editor.
There are also a lot of really fun cameos sprinkled throughout the film. Aside from Jason Segal and Rashida Jones, keep an eye our for appearances by Masi Oka (“Heroes”), Andy Samberg (”I Love You, Man”), Emma Stone (”Zombieland”, “Easy A”), and a very unusual appearance by Olympic athlete Shaun White.
While this movie is not ultimately as good as “Easy A”, it does manage to keep some of the fast-paced humour, as well as a loving willingness to mock its own genre. The movie's only real weakness is when they try to cram some conflict into the film. Even this stuff is entertaining, but it does not feel particularly natural, and it has a negative effect on the quality of the story.
At 109 minutes, “Friends With Benefits” is probably longer than it should be, but chances are that you'll be enjoying it enough to not notice. Its a fast, funny, crude movie that eschews Easy A's walking of the PG-13 boundaries for full-on R rated language and even a bit of nudity (and not all of it Justin Timberlake's arse). What it's not however is a must see. Compared to “No Strings Attached” it's an absolute masterpiece, but taken on its own it's nothing to get too excited about. I don't suggest paying full theater dollars for this, but it is certainly worth giving a rent.
“Friends With Benefits” is in theaters now.
Mila Kunis (“The Book of Eli”) plays Jamie, a corporate recruiter who is trying to lure Dylan (Justin Timberlake: “The Social Network”) to New York to interview for a position with GQ magazine. She manages to win him over, and he trades his Los Angeles life for a new home in New York.
Of course the only person that Dylan knows in New York, aside from his new employees, is Jamie, and seeing as neither of them have much luck with dating due to their various personality issues they begin to hang out regularly. After a night of drinking and watching a hilariously bad romantic comedy (starring Jason Segel and Rashida Jones from ”I Love You, Man”) the discussion turns to sex as an activity instead of as an expression of emotion. The discussion quickly turns to an action, and the pair's emotion-free relationship begins.
“Friends With Benefits” wants to be to romantic comedies what the original “Scream” was to horror films; it completely takes the piss out of the genre while still being faithful to it. “No Strings Attached” sort of tried to do this by including ever RomCom trope ever into one film, and it ended up being a complete mess of a film, but this movie finds its focus and sticks with it. There are no zany best friends in this film, no beta couple, no jerkass trying to steal the heart of one of the main couple; it's just two people trying to be best friends who just happen to have sex with each other... a lot.
Of course the lack of wacky best friends and beta couples doesn't mean there is no supporting cast; there's a very strong one in fact. Through the course of the film we get to meet Jamie's mother (Patricia Clarkson: “Easy A”, Dylan's father (Richard Jenkins : “Six Feet Under”, “Hall Pass”), sister (Jenna Elfman: “Dharma and Greg), and nephew (Nolan Gould: “Modern Family”). Of course it would'nt be right to not mention who might be the funniest actor in the entire film: Woody Harrelson (”Zombieland”) as Tommy, GQ's manic sports editor.
There are also a lot of really fun cameos sprinkled throughout the film. Aside from Jason Segal and Rashida Jones, keep an eye our for appearances by Masi Oka (“Heroes”), Andy Samberg (”I Love You, Man”), Emma Stone (”Zombieland”, “Easy A”), and a very unusual appearance by Olympic athlete Shaun White.
While this movie is not ultimately as good as “Easy A”, it does manage to keep some of the fast-paced humour, as well as a loving willingness to mock its own genre. The movie's only real weakness is when they try to cram some conflict into the film. Even this stuff is entertaining, but it does not feel particularly natural, and it has a negative effect on the quality of the story.
At 109 minutes, “Friends With Benefits” is probably longer than it should be, but chances are that you'll be enjoying it enough to not notice. Its a fast, funny, crude movie that eschews Easy A's walking of the PG-13 boundaries for full-on R rated language and even a bit of nudity (and not all of it Justin Timberlake's arse). What it's not however is a must see. Compared to “No Strings Attached” it's an absolute masterpiece, but taken on its own it's nothing to get too excited about. I don't suggest paying full theater dollars for this, but it is certainly worth giving a rent.
“Friends With Benefits” is in theaters now.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Something Borrowed
At first, “Something Borrowed”, based on the novel by Emily Giffin, seems like it is just going to be another run of the mill romantic comedy. Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin: “Big Love”) has a crush on Dex (Colin Egglesfield: “All My Children”), a guy she went to law school with, but she has never told him how she feels because she doesn't believe that he could ever feel that way about somone quiet and mousey like her, but that's not the problem. You see, Dex is engaged to Rachel's lifelong best friend, Darcy (Kate Hudson: “Bride Wars”), whom she introduced him to in the first place, but that's not the real problem either.
The problem is, that on the night of her thirtieth birthday, Rachel confesses her feelings to Dex, expecting him to just laugh it off, but he doesn't. In fact, he admits that he had the same feelings about her, but thought that it was she who was not interested. So now, with only months until Darcy and Dex are due to get married, he and Rachel must figure out what exists between them while keeping the whole thing a secret from Darcy.
To further complicate things, Darcy keeps trying to pair Rachel up with Dex's neanderthal, manchild of a friend, Marcus (Steve Howey: “Stan Helsing”), who seems to be willing to sleep with anything with a pair of breasts. Then there's Ethan (John Krasinski: “The Office”), who is a mutual friend of Darcy and Rachel, and seems to be almost the personification of Rachel's conscience when he's not busy trying to hide from Claire (Ashley Williams: “Good Morning, Miami”), a woman obsessed with him after a poorly thought out one night stand.
Now what makes this a unique RomCom to me is that fact that the audience is expected to root for a protagonist who is attempting to steal her best friend's fiance. It's not just Rachel who is a bad person though, it's everyone. Darcy is an alcoholic attention-whore, Dex is seriously considering dumping his fiance for Rachel, Marcus is just a sleazeball, and Ethan won't be honest with Claire about his lack of interest in her. If anything, the only character who's not scummy in this film is Claire, who may be a bit of an overbearing nutter, but at least she's honest in her dealings with the other characters.
It's not just the scumminess of the characters that set this film apart from other films in the genre though, it's the attention given to minor characters. Marcus and Ethan, both of whom seem like they should just be minor characters are actually very well fleshed out. I was especially susprised to see Marcus get a couple of scenes where he is allowed to be a little bit more than just a horndog; it's nice to see a character that could easily have been two-dimensional get to be a little genuine, even if it is in a slimey sort of way.
The person who steals a lot of scenes though is Ethan. When he's not busy trying to hide from Claire, or be Jiminy Cricket to Rachel's Pinnochio, he gets to be Captain Snarker. A lot of the movie's funniest lines are delivered by him, as he seems to almost act as a vocalization for whatever is going on in Rachel's mind. Basically amp up Krasinski's character on “The Office” a couple of notches, and you will have a fairly good idea of who Ethan is.
Of course all this time spent on minor characters pads the movie out a bit, and by a bit I mean a lot. The film is almost two hours long, which is a bit much for a pretty light chick flick like this. Usually when a movie is this long, I can think of scenes I would cut out, but that's not the case this time; everything is either too funny to cut, or it's actually important to the plot. In the interest of full disclosure, the screening I attended was not air conditioned, and by the film's end it had to be around ninety degrees in there, so that may have influenced my issues with the length a little.
All in all, this is a fun film, and it stays surprisingly light despite its subject matter, but I could not help but feel a little oogy cheering on a homewrecker. Yes, the film goes out of its way to make Darcy as unlikable as possible without actually making her hateful, but what Rachel and Dex are doing cannot help but feel immoral to me. I still liked their characters, but this is definitely a film where there are no black hats or white hats, just lots and lots of gray hats.
Even though “Something Borrowed” is almost certainly going to get crushed under the heel of “Thor” at the box office, it is a nice alternative for people not into the mullet-wearing hammer-wielder, and you could certainly find a worse alternative out there. If you like your girly RomCom characters to have the morality of the guys from “The Hangover”, and you want a movie that has a number of genuinely funny moments then I would definitely recommend that you check out “Something Borrowed”, just maybe don't take your best friend with you.
“Something Borrowed” will steal your boyfriend in theaters Friday, May 6th.
The problem is, that on the night of her thirtieth birthday, Rachel confesses her feelings to Dex, expecting him to just laugh it off, but he doesn't. In fact, he admits that he had the same feelings about her, but thought that it was she who was not interested. So now, with only months until Darcy and Dex are due to get married, he and Rachel must figure out what exists between them while keeping the whole thing a secret from Darcy.
To further complicate things, Darcy keeps trying to pair Rachel up with Dex's neanderthal, manchild of a friend, Marcus (Steve Howey: “Stan Helsing”), who seems to be willing to sleep with anything with a pair of breasts. Then there's Ethan (John Krasinski: “The Office”), who is a mutual friend of Darcy and Rachel, and seems to be almost the personification of Rachel's conscience when he's not busy trying to hide from Claire (Ashley Williams: “Good Morning, Miami”), a woman obsessed with him after a poorly thought out one night stand.
Now what makes this a unique RomCom to me is that fact that the audience is expected to root for a protagonist who is attempting to steal her best friend's fiance. It's not just Rachel who is a bad person though, it's everyone. Darcy is an alcoholic attention-whore, Dex is seriously considering dumping his fiance for Rachel, Marcus is just a sleazeball, and Ethan won't be honest with Claire about his lack of interest in her. If anything, the only character who's not scummy in this film is Claire, who may be a bit of an overbearing nutter, but at least she's honest in her dealings with the other characters.
It's not just the scumminess of the characters that set this film apart from other films in the genre though, it's the attention given to minor characters. Marcus and Ethan, both of whom seem like they should just be minor characters are actually very well fleshed out. I was especially susprised to see Marcus get a couple of scenes where he is allowed to be a little bit more than just a horndog; it's nice to see a character that could easily have been two-dimensional get to be a little genuine, even if it is in a slimey sort of way.
The person who steals a lot of scenes though is Ethan. When he's not busy trying to hide from Claire, or be Jiminy Cricket to Rachel's Pinnochio, he gets to be Captain Snarker. A lot of the movie's funniest lines are delivered by him, as he seems to almost act as a vocalization for whatever is going on in Rachel's mind. Basically amp up Krasinski's character on “The Office” a couple of notches, and you will have a fairly good idea of who Ethan is.
Of course all this time spent on minor characters pads the movie out a bit, and by a bit I mean a lot. The film is almost two hours long, which is a bit much for a pretty light chick flick like this. Usually when a movie is this long, I can think of scenes I would cut out, but that's not the case this time; everything is either too funny to cut, or it's actually important to the plot. In the interest of full disclosure, the screening I attended was not air conditioned, and by the film's end it had to be around ninety degrees in there, so that may have influenced my issues with the length a little.
All in all, this is a fun film, and it stays surprisingly light despite its subject matter, but I could not help but feel a little oogy cheering on a homewrecker. Yes, the film goes out of its way to make Darcy as unlikable as possible without actually making her hateful, but what Rachel and Dex are doing cannot help but feel immoral to me. I still liked their characters, but this is definitely a film where there are no black hats or white hats, just lots and lots of gray hats.
Even though “Something Borrowed” is almost certainly going to get crushed under the heel of “Thor” at the box office, it is a nice alternative for people not into the mullet-wearing hammer-wielder, and you could certainly find a worse alternative out there. If you like your girly RomCom characters to have the morality of the guys from “The Hangover”, and you want a movie that has a number of genuinely funny moments then I would definitely recommend that you check out “Something Borrowed”, just maybe don't take your best friend with you.
“Something Borrowed” will steal your boyfriend in theaters Friday, May 6th.
Friday, January 21, 2011
No Strings Attached
Ah, the romantic comedy; you already know the general plot, right? Boy meets girl, they fall in love despite boy being a dweeb/loser/fat/womanizer, but then boy screws things up and loses girl so boy has to win girl back before it's too late and she goes off with cool jerk/moves away/gets herself to a nunnery. “No Strings Attached” is the new RomCom from director Ivan Reitman (“Ghostbusters”) starring Ashton Kutcher (“That 70's Show) and Natalie Portman (“Black Swan”) as our couple-to-be, but this movie does play the story a little bit different.
Adam (Kutcher) and Emma (Portman) originally met as kids at summer camp, but it isn't until they meet again ten years later that a real spark starts up between them. They are clearly attracted to each other, but as Emma describes herself as not being very affectionate this meeting results in one very awkward not-date before they go their separate ways again.
Jump ahead to the present and Adam has a job as an assistant on a television show that looks to have take more than a little inspiration from “High School Musical”, and Emma is working through her residency at the local teaching hospital. Adam is not having a good time of it; he's just found out that his ex-girlfriend has hooked up with his father (Kevin Kline), and in a night of drunk-dialing, Adam calls every woman he knows trying to find one to have sex with him. This is how Emma and Adam finally end up together.
I said before that this film flips the standard RomCom script a little bit, and the flip is that the conflict in their relationship is not the fault of Adam. Kutcher actually does a good job of dialing down his seemingly natural douchiness and playing a really genuinely nice guy; it's Emma that's the problem. While Adam would happily enter into a relationship, Emma does not like them; she compares being in a relationship to having an allergic reaction to peanuts. What she really wants is someone to have sex with with no complications, no jealousy, no strings attached (ah ha!), so they become “sex friends”. How long can this last though? Can Adam not push her away by trying to pull her closer? Can Emma stop herself from having human emotions? Can they really stretch this story out to almost two hours? Well, the answer to the last question is a resounding yes.
This movie is long, too long. Two hours is a good length for a fantasy epic, or a historical drama, but it is too long for a movie like this. It would not be so bad if they simply kept to scenes that contributed to the story. The problem with doing that is that a lot of the funniest scenes (Adam's mix CD is a perfect example) do nothing but take up time, while the scenes that forward the story tend to be rather meh. At times the film feels like the writers had great ideas for scenes, but no way to make them relevant, but decided leave them in anyway. There are easily thirty minutes worth of fluff that could have been trimmed out which would have saved me a lot of watch checking.
Another thing that seems to add to the length is the sheer number of stock RomCom characters present in the film. You have Adam's funny friends, Jake and Eli (Ludacris and Jake M. Johnson), who are not all that funny. You have Emma's roommates/friends, Patrice (Greta Gerwig), the BFF, Shira (Mindy Kaling), the snarker, and Guy (Guy Branum), the gay guy, none of whom get much of a chance to shine. There's the beta couple, fulfilled by Eli and Patrice, who seem to be more interested in staying out of the conflict than helping their respective friends in a more traditional beta couple role. Then there's the standard handsome mature jerk who wants Emma for himself, Sam (Ben Lawson), whose subplot is dropped before it ever really gets going. Finally there's the other woman, Lucy (Lake Bell), who is far too nice to deserve to be caught in the splash damage from Emma and Adam's relationship, but that's okay, because her subplot lasts even less time than Sam's (honestly, I liked her character better than Emma, even though they try to make her REALLY annoying towards the end).
Aside from all those characters fighting for screen time, there's the aforementioned Kevin Kline as Adam's actor father, and, most confusingly, Cary Elwes as one of the doctors at Emma's hospital. Kline is actually quite fun to watch in this movie, but I say that Elwes is the most confusing because his role has no significance; it could have been played by any no name actor. While he does appear in a number of scenes, he only has three or four lines and spends most of his screen time looking confused. I imagine that he was wondering why he was even there; I know I was.
Naturally Kutcher and Portman take most of the screen time, and they both do a good job. Kutcher shows some real range in this, breaking free of the personality built by years of “That 70's Show” and “Punk'd” to create a character that is at the same time fun and a little goofy, but still a mature, likable person. Portman's character is not quite as likable, but the exact roots of her damage are never explored (there is one scene that tries to explain it, but if you watched the film's first ten minutes then this explanation will not make sense). Portman's Emma tends to be all over the place as far as her personality goes, but this seems to be the result of the writers and director being unsure what is really wrong with her rather than any fault of Natalie Portman.
This film is a bit of a mediocre mess, even by romantic comedy standards. It tries to use a reasonably unique premise, but it gets so caught up in playing with as many RomCom tropes as it can that it turns into a rambling mess of minor characters with nothing to do fighting for a reason to be there. It's almost as if Ivan Reitman were trying to troll the crowd that likes traditional romantic comedies by turning traditional roles on their ear, but even if that was his goal, it just comes across as a poor effort. The movie does have a few good laughs, and seeing Natalie Portman swerve around drunkenly while cursing is quite amusing, but it's not enough to redeem this. Even compared to some of last year's efforts, like“Going the Distance” or “She's Out of my League” this movie falls well short of what a good romantic comedy should be, and what it could have been.
Unless you really want to see Ashton Kutcher's bare ass on a big screen (sorry guys, Portman never appears in less than modest underwear), there are just better ways to spend your time and money this weekend. It's too long, and while it does try to be everything a romantic comedy should be, it ends up missing that target by a lot. Spend your money on something better this weekend.
“No Strings Attached” is in theaters now.
Adam (Kutcher) and Emma (Portman) originally met as kids at summer camp, but it isn't until they meet again ten years later that a real spark starts up between them. They are clearly attracted to each other, but as Emma describes herself as not being very affectionate this meeting results in one very awkward not-date before they go their separate ways again.
Jump ahead to the present and Adam has a job as an assistant on a television show that looks to have take more than a little inspiration from “High School Musical”, and Emma is working through her residency at the local teaching hospital. Adam is not having a good time of it; he's just found out that his ex-girlfriend has hooked up with his father (Kevin Kline), and in a night of drunk-dialing, Adam calls every woman he knows trying to find one to have sex with him. This is how Emma and Adam finally end up together.
I said before that this film flips the standard RomCom script a little bit, and the flip is that the conflict in their relationship is not the fault of Adam. Kutcher actually does a good job of dialing down his seemingly natural douchiness and playing a really genuinely nice guy; it's Emma that's the problem. While Adam would happily enter into a relationship, Emma does not like them; she compares being in a relationship to having an allergic reaction to peanuts. What she really wants is someone to have sex with with no complications, no jealousy, no strings attached (ah ha!), so they become “sex friends”. How long can this last though? Can Adam not push her away by trying to pull her closer? Can Emma stop herself from having human emotions? Can they really stretch this story out to almost two hours? Well, the answer to the last question is a resounding yes.
This movie is long, too long. Two hours is a good length for a fantasy epic, or a historical drama, but it is too long for a movie like this. It would not be so bad if they simply kept to scenes that contributed to the story. The problem with doing that is that a lot of the funniest scenes (Adam's mix CD is a perfect example) do nothing but take up time, while the scenes that forward the story tend to be rather meh. At times the film feels like the writers had great ideas for scenes, but no way to make them relevant, but decided leave them in anyway. There are easily thirty minutes worth of fluff that could have been trimmed out which would have saved me a lot of watch checking.
Another thing that seems to add to the length is the sheer number of stock RomCom characters present in the film. You have Adam's funny friends, Jake and Eli (Ludacris and Jake M. Johnson), who are not all that funny. You have Emma's roommates/friends, Patrice (Greta Gerwig), the BFF, Shira (Mindy Kaling), the snarker, and Guy (Guy Branum), the gay guy, none of whom get much of a chance to shine. There's the beta couple, fulfilled by Eli and Patrice, who seem to be more interested in staying out of the conflict than helping their respective friends in a more traditional beta couple role. Then there's the standard handsome mature jerk who wants Emma for himself, Sam (Ben Lawson), whose subplot is dropped before it ever really gets going. Finally there's the other woman, Lucy (Lake Bell), who is far too nice to deserve to be caught in the splash damage from Emma and Adam's relationship, but that's okay, because her subplot lasts even less time than Sam's (honestly, I liked her character better than Emma, even though they try to make her REALLY annoying towards the end).
Aside from all those characters fighting for screen time, there's the aforementioned Kevin Kline as Adam's actor father, and, most confusingly, Cary Elwes as one of the doctors at Emma's hospital. Kline is actually quite fun to watch in this movie, but I say that Elwes is the most confusing because his role has no significance; it could have been played by any no name actor. While he does appear in a number of scenes, he only has three or four lines and spends most of his screen time looking confused. I imagine that he was wondering why he was even there; I know I was.
Naturally Kutcher and Portman take most of the screen time, and they both do a good job. Kutcher shows some real range in this, breaking free of the personality built by years of “That 70's Show” and “Punk'd” to create a character that is at the same time fun and a little goofy, but still a mature, likable person. Portman's character is not quite as likable, but the exact roots of her damage are never explored (there is one scene that tries to explain it, but if you watched the film's first ten minutes then this explanation will not make sense). Portman's Emma tends to be all over the place as far as her personality goes, but this seems to be the result of the writers and director being unsure what is really wrong with her rather than any fault of Natalie Portman.
This film is a bit of a mediocre mess, even by romantic comedy standards. It tries to use a reasonably unique premise, but it gets so caught up in playing with as many RomCom tropes as it can that it turns into a rambling mess of minor characters with nothing to do fighting for a reason to be there. It's almost as if Ivan Reitman were trying to troll the crowd that likes traditional romantic comedies by turning traditional roles on their ear, but even if that was his goal, it just comes across as a poor effort. The movie does have a few good laughs, and seeing Natalie Portman swerve around drunkenly while cursing is quite amusing, but it's not enough to redeem this. Even compared to some of last year's efforts, like“Going the Distance” or “She's Out of my League” this movie falls well short of what a good romantic comedy should be, and what it could have been.
Unless you really want to see Ashton Kutcher's bare ass on a big screen (sorry guys, Portman never appears in less than modest underwear), there are just better ways to spend your time and money this weekend. It's too long, and while it does try to be everything a romantic comedy should be, it ends up missing that target by a lot. Spend your money on something better this weekend.
“No Strings Attached” is in theaters now.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Life As We Know It
In 2007 organized, stable, snarky Holly Berenson (Katherine Heigl: “Grey's Anatomy”) and laid-back, skirt-chasing, but equally snarky Eric Messer (Josh Duhamel: “When in Rome”) are set up on a blind date by their mutual friends, Peter and Allison. Things do not go well. Three years later when the unthinkable happens to Peter and Allison the pair find themselves left as guardian's of the friends' child. Can they put aside their dislike of each other as well as their plans for their own lives to raise a kid together?
“Life As We Know It” is the new Drama-Rom-Com hitting theaters this Friday from director Greg Berlanti. This looks to only be his second time in the director's chair, he doesn't do a spectacular job of bringing this story to the screen, but then it's not really a spectacular story, so it works out okay. After slapping you upside the head with the tragedy stick about thirty minutes in, the movie becomes a pretty standard rom-com with a large portion of unprepared-parent-comedy thrown in
The whole film is fairly straight forward and predictable. Poop jokes? Check! Fussy baby jokes? Check! Male and female leads clearly being jealous when the other is with someone else even though they claim to still hate each other? Check, check, and double-check! I'm not saying the movie is not funny or entertaining, I'm merely saying that you are not going to have your socks knocked off.
Heigl and Duhamel do a fine job playing their fairly standard issue rom-com characters, but they never really go the extra mile for laughs. For me the characters who stand out the best are the baby, Sophie (played by Alexis, Brynn, and Brooke Clagett) whose expressive face steals more than a few scenes from her adult co-stars, and Sarah Burns (“I Love You, Man”, “Going the Distance”) as CPS investigator Janine Groff. Both characters are underused though, and this seems somewhat worse with Sophie since the movie sort of revolves around her, but she is used more as a prop and plot device than a full fledged character a lot of the time. I would also liked to have seen a lot more of Burns' character in the film as she was a bit more entertaining than the main couple, a fact that I think even the writers realized as she plays a prominent role during the movie's climax despite there being no real stated motivation for her to do so.
This is clearly a film intended for women (I know, a rom-com with a baby in it not being geared towards men, who'da thunk it?), and with that in mind you can expect to see a lot of a sweaty Josh Duhamel without his shirt on. Sorry guys, there is no eye candy for you here; the closest Katherine Hiegl gets to fan service is on brief scene in a bath towel that could easily have been a cheesecake-y, but isn't.
Ultimately, “Life As We Know It” is a funny, sweet film that is not easy to genuinely dislike, but is not easy to recommend either. The movie is a little too paint-by-numbers, and, at times, feels like an idea for a WB sitcom that got salvaged from some recycle bin and re-purposed. If you've seen more than a couple of romantic comedies in your life then you know how this is going to end before the lights even go down. It's not bad, but it's not worth theater-money either. I suggest waiting for it to come out on DVD, and go see something else on the big screen this weekend.
Like Zombies? Check out "Mallville - A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse", a free blognovel about the geek and the dead.
“Life As We Know It” is the new Drama-Rom-Com hitting theaters this Friday from director Greg Berlanti. This looks to only be his second time in the director's chair, he doesn't do a spectacular job of bringing this story to the screen, but then it's not really a spectacular story, so it works out okay. After slapping you upside the head with the tragedy stick about thirty minutes in, the movie becomes a pretty standard rom-com with a large portion of unprepared-parent-comedy thrown in
The whole film is fairly straight forward and predictable. Poop jokes? Check! Fussy baby jokes? Check! Male and female leads clearly being jealous when the other is with someone else even though they claim to still hate each other? Check, check, and double-check! I'm not saying the movie is not funny or entertaining, I'm merely saying that you are not going to have your socks knocked off.
Heigl and Duhamel do a fine job playing their fairly standard issue rom-com characters, but they never really go the extra mile for laughs. For me the characters who stand out the best are the baby, Sophie (played by Alexis, Brynn, and Brooke Clagett) whose expressive face steals more than a few scenes from her adult co-stars, and Sarah Burns (“I Love You, Man”, “Going the Distance”) as CPS investigator Janine Groff. Both characters are underused though, and this seems somewhat worse with Sophie since the movie sort of revolves around her, but she is used more as a prop and plot device than a full fledged character a lot of the time. I would also liked to have seen a lot more of Burns' character in the film as she was a bit more entertaining than the main couple, a fact that I think even the writers realized as she plays a prominent role during the movie's climax despite there being no real stated motivation for her to do so.
This is clearly a film intended for women (I know, a rom-com with a baby in it not being geared towards men, who'da thunk it?), and with that in mind you can expect to see a lot of a sweaty Josh Duhamel without his shirt on. Sorry guys, there is no eye candy for you here; the closest Katherine Hiegl gets to fan service is on brief scene in a bath towel that could easily have been a cheesecake-y, but isn't.
Ultimately, “Life As We Know It” is a funny, sweet film that is not easy to genuinely dislike, but is not easy to recommend either. The movie is a little too paint-by-numbers, and, at times, feels like an idea for a WB sitcom that got salvaged from some recycle bin and re-purposed. If you've seen more than a couple of romantic comedies in your life then you know how this is going to end before the lights even go down. It's not bad, but it's not worth theater-money either. I suggest waiting for it to come out on DVD, and go see something else on the big screen this weekend.
Like Zombies? Check out "Mallville - A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse", a free blognovel about the geek and the dead.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Going the Distance
“Going the Distance” is the new romantic comedy about a Mac and a PC who-; no wait, no it's not (but wouldn't it be cool if it was? I'd go see that). It's actually about two thirty-somethings who have to cope with the strains and stresses of a cross-country relationship.
Garret (Justin Long: probably best known from the “I'm a Mac” ad campaign) meets Erin (Drew Barrymore: “Music and Lyrics”) one night while out at the bar. He's just been dumped by his latest girlfriend essentially for being a douchebag, she's blowing off steam because her internship at The New York Sentinel newspaper is not going well (and yes, there is a brief explanation as to why someone in her thirties is still an intern). After some initial rockiness, the pair hit it off.
A one night stand becomes a friendship. A friendship becomes something more, but before that can really become a relationship Erin's internship ends, and she must return to San Francisco to finish her schooling. In spite of their better judgment, the pair decide to give a long distance relationship a go.
The plot is the standard boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back only to lose her again, and then must do something big to win her back one final time variety of plot. You're not going to find anything especially new or fresh here, but that doesn't mean you won't be amused. Strangely though, not many of the laughs come from Long or Barrymore (although for some reason Drew Barrymore cursing and suggesting a large biker perform an anatomically impossible act on her is enough to make me laugh), but from the supporting cast.
The friends and family of Garret and Erin are easily the best parts of this movie. In New York, Garret has his roommate, Dan (Charlie Day: “It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia”), who likes to listen to his roommate's romantic sessions through the wall, and his co-worker, Box (Jason Sudeikis: “30 Rock”) who is growing an 80's mustache to attract older women. Erin in San Francisco has her friend, Harper (Sarah Burns: “I Love You, Man”) her germaphobic sister, Corinne (Christina Applegate: “Married... With Children”), and her sister's husband, Phil (Jim Gaffigan: “17 Again”). Ultimately it is Day, Sudeikis, and Applegate who garner the majority of the films laughs, if not the biggest laugh (all I'm going to say about that is “dining room table”) of the whole film.
Justin Long seems like an odd choice for this role. While it is clear that the filmmakers tried to tailor the lead roles for the actors, the story feels like it should have leads who are about five to eight years younger than they are stated to be, there's only so much you can do for someone like Long. He's just not that good of an actor, and it shows in this. His character comes of as a bit of a douche at best, and a downright jerk at worst. I'll be honest here and say that I am not a big fan of Long, so my opinion is slanted by that, but I think that he is one of those actors (like Michael Cera) who can ruin a movie for you if you don't like him.
For most of the film, “Going the Distance” moves at a steady pace, making sure to throw decent amounts of mostly lowbrow humour at you when things start to get a little too heavy, but there are times when it tries to be serious. This movie fails the hardest during these times as Justin Long cannot pull it off convincingly, and towards the end the film starts to feel a little draggy; like it could have had a completely different type of ending about fifteen minutes before the actual conclusion.
I enjoyed this movie, but then I went into it with really low expectations, so unless you are looking for a decent date movie (but maybe not a first date; there is a lot of swearing, sexual references, and Long's bare arse) there is really no reason to recommend seeing this in theaters. The story is pure meh, Justin Long is not a leading man, and the laughs that are there, while plentiful, just do not outweigh the film's flaws. Rent it, or check it out on cable in a few months when it is just another bawdy romantic comedy shuffled in with all of the rest. If you are really that desperate for a new RomCom to see though, then you can see “Going the Distance” when it lands in theaters on September 3rd.
Garret (Justin Long: probably best known from the “I'm a Mac” ad campaign) meets Erin (Drew Barrymore: “Music and Lyrics”) one night while out at the bar. He's just been dumped by his latest girlfriend essentially for being a douchebag, she's blowing off steam because her internship at The New York Sentinel newspaper is not going well (and yes, there is a brief explanation as to why someone in her thirties is still an intern). After some initial rockiness, the pair hit it off.
A one night stand becomes a friendship. A friendship becomes something more, but before that can really become a relationship Erin's internship ends, and she must return to San Francisco to finish her schooling. In spite of their better judgment, the pair decide to give a long distance relationship a go.
The plot is the standard boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back only to lose her again, and then must do something big to win her back one final time variety of plot. You're not going to find anything especially new or fresh here, but that doesn't mean you won't be amused. Strangely though, not many of the laughs come from Long or Barrymore (although for some reason Drew Barrymore cursing and suggesting a large biker perform an anatomically impossible act on her is enough to make me laugh), but from the supporting cast.
The friends and family of Garret and Erin are easily the best parts of this movie. In New York, Garret has his roommate, Dan (Charlie Day: “It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia”), who likes to listen to his roommate's romantic sessions through the wall, and his co-worker, Box (Jason Sudeikis: “30 Rock”) who is growing an 80's mustache to attract older women. Erin in San Francisco has her friend, Harper (Sarah Burns: “I Love You, Man”) her germaphobic sister, Corinne (Christina Applegate: “Married... With Children”), and her sister's husband, Phil (Jim Gaffigan: “17 Again”). Ultimately it is Day, Sudeikis, and Applegate who garner the majority of the films laughs, if not the biggest laugh (all I'm going to say about that is “dining room table”) of the whole film.
Justin Long seems like an odd choice for this role. While it is clear that the filmmakers tried to tailor the lead roles for the actors, the story feels like it should have leads who are about five to eight years younger than they are stated to be, there's only so much you can do for someone like Long. He's just not that good of an actor, and it shows in this. His character comes of as a bit of a douche at best, and a downright jerk at worst. I'll be honest here and say that I am not a big fan of Long, so my opinion is slanted by that, but I think that he is one of those actors (like Michael Cera) who can ruin a movie for you if you don't like him.
For most of the film, “Going the Distance” moves at a steady pace, making sure to throw decent amounts of mostly lowbrow humour at you when things start to get a little too heavy, but there are times when it tries to be serious. This movie fails the hardest during these times as Justin Long cannot pull it off convincingly, and towards the end the film starts to feel a little draggy; like it could have had a completely different type of ending about fifteen minutes before the actual conclusion.
I enjoyed this movie, but then I went into it with really low expectations, so unless you are looking for a decent date movie (but maybe not a first date; there is a lot of swearing, sexual references, and Long's bare arse) there is really no reason to recommend seeing this in theaters. The story is pure meh, Justin Long is not a leading man, and the laughs that are there, while plentiful, just do not outweigh the film's flaws. Rent it, or check it out on cable in a few months when it is just another bawdy romantic comedy shuffled in with all of the rest. If you are really that desperate for a new RomCom to see though, then you can see “Going the Distance” when it lands in theaters on September 3rd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)